Welcome to another edition of SkepticMag Hotline, the internet edition of
Skeptic magazine and the cyberspace voice of the Skeptics Society. For further
information about the magazine and society, contact P.O. Box 338, Altadena, CA
91001; 626/794-3119 (phone); 626/794-1301 (fax); skepticmag@aol.com and
www.skeptic.com or send your message telepathically and we will respond in
kind.

Subscription information is on our web page: www.skeptic.com or if you would
like to subscribe now, just send us an e-mail to skepticmag@aol.com with your
name, address, phone, Visa or Mastercard number, and expiration date, and we
will send you your first issue immediately, Vol. 6, #3, with the cover story
and theme: WHY PROFESSORS BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS.

Michael Shermer
Publisher

---------------------

EVOLUTION V. CREATION DOWN UNDER

Ian Plimer, our skeptical friend down under, sends this short essay on the
continuing controversy over evolution and creation in Australia. Australia is
the largest bastion of creationism in the world outside America, so we need to
pay close attention to what happens there.

SCIENCE versus CREATIONISM IN AUSTRALIA

Professor Ian Plimer,
School of Earth Sciences,
The University of Melbourne,
Parkville Vic. 3052
Australia

Australia is a pluralist secular society with a diversity of ethnic
groups, languages, cultures, races and religions. There is no official
State religion and there is a separation of church and state. Government
is at the Federal, State and Regional level with school education
controlled by the States and Territories of Australia and University
Education controlled by the Federal Government. Compared with former
times, the mainstream churches have lost contact with their flock and
there has been a great rise in charismatic, fundamentalist and pentecostal
churches, cults, new age ideology and irrationality. Immigration has led
to a great rise in non-Christian religions. Only 18% of the Australian
public claim to attend church. In Australia, religions are tax-exempt and,
to be a religion for tax purposes, one must only register with the
Australian Tax Office. Numerous commercial opportunities have been
exploited by those capitalising on the spiritual vacuum and the tax
benefits in Australia. The taxpayer, whether Christian or not, pays for
Christianity in Australia.

Creationism in Australia

Creation 'science' argues that there is scientific evidence which proves
that the planet is a mere few thousand years old and that there was a
"Great Flood". Creation 'scientists' argue that there is overwhelming
scientific evidence for a "Great Flood" and that there is no scientific
evidence for evolution.

The scientific chronicle of planet Earth is underpinned by evidence.
Evidence which is for all to see and for all to challenge. With an
increasing amount of reproducible evidence, the chronicle of our planet is
refined and interpretations are modified. This is the healthy unfinished
business of science. Because evidence, conclusions and ideas are
constantly tested and re-evaluated, any dogma, mistake or scientific fraud
are ultimately uncovered. Scientists guilty of scientific fraud are
dismissed, discredited and never practice again.

There have been numerous investigations into the 'science' of the
creationists. All have shown that the 'science' is misquoted, misleading,
deceptive, fraudulent or concocted. Not one scientific claim of the
creationists has withstood scrutiny. The leaders of the creationist
movement knowingly exploit the yearning for spirituality, the fear of the
unknown and the scientific and theological ignorance of the community.

Why not ignore these bizarre fundamentalists to practice their own
beliefs? Does it matter? It does matter. Creationists abuse the
democratic process and demand that their view of the planet, which they
claim is underpinned by 'science', should be taught in school science
courses on an equal time basis with science. The creationist target is
children, either directly or indirectly. The creationist literature,
lecture tours and videos are directed at school children.

Creationism is rising in the new world countries and is about power. It is
the political arm of southern USA Christian fundamentalism. Christian
fundamentalist cults want to use school science courses as their
evangelical recruiting grounds to gain control of the minds and souls of
the young. In my view, it is unacceptable in a pluralist society to have
Christian fundamentalists teaching junk religion and proven fraudulent
science to our children.

Creationism has entered Australia by stealth as a business. Once
established in 1980, the lobbying of State governments was so successful
that Queensland allowed the teaching of creationism as science to school
children.

Public responsibility of a professor, 1985-1991

There had been numerous palaeontologists and biologists voice public
objection to creation "science" in Australia Even though an ore deposit
geologist, once appointed to a Chair (1985), I felt that it was my public
duty to profess my discipline in public. I voiced my concerns about the
scientific and educational value of creationism in the professional
literature. I was immediately attacked in public and threatened with
litigation by the creationist groups.

In USA, those religious and scientific groups who objected to creationism
treated creationists as peers and argued from a position of weakness.
Creationism continued to grow in USA. I therefore decided to mount a very
public campaign against what I consider an abuse of a tolerant society,
science and education. As an educationist, I would like the community to
have knowledge about how the planet works and to be trained as critical
thinkers. Rather than argue on detailed matters of theology and science, I
focussed on the heart of the matter.

After some investigation, I was able to show that that the leaders of the
creationist groups in Australia were guilty of scientific and financial
fraud. I published my findings in newspapers, undertook radio and
television programs and presented numerous public lectures on creationism.
These activities allowed me to promote geology to the public. The
creationist response was attempts to have me dismissed from my Chair,
litigation threats, hundreds of vexatious letters and two death threats.

Security measures were put in place, unlisted telephone numbers were used,
my daily program became unpredictable, I moved house and had an
untraceable address. At the same time I was Head of Department, sat on the
Australian Research Council grants and major equipment committees, sat on
numerous other national committees, was editor of Mineralium Deposita, was
president of the Society for Geology Applied to Ore Deposits, was
president of the Australian Geoscience Council, continued to give lectures
and undertook an active research life. Life became stressful.

Litigation, 1992-1998

In 1992, a well publicised Australia-wide lecture tour was undertaken by a
creationist who claimed that he had found Noah=92s Ark and that there was
geological evidence supporting his claims. Furthermore, the creationist
claimed he had a doctorate degree. Noah's Ark is one of the key tenets of
creationism. If Noah's Ark were found, it would substantiate the
fundamentalist view of the planet and society. If Noah's Ark could undergo
scientific examination, the find would have more credibility.
Fundamentalism would have more power. If Noah's Ark was found by a
fundamentalist, then fame and fortune would follow. The newspapers, radio
and television accepted and published these claims uncritically.

I attended one of the public lectures. At the end of the lecture, I
attempted to ask a question about geology in order to demonstrate to the
public that these claims were unsupported by science. I was forcibly
ejected from the meeting by the organisers. The next meeting I attended
was in a University lecture hall rented by the creationists. At the end of
the lecture, I again attempted to ask a question about geology. I was
ejected by the police for asking a question about geology in a public
meeting in a University. This time I was with a TV crew and a current
affairs program was broadcast about the creationists. After some
investigation, I discovered that the "doctorate" degree had been purchased
from a letterbox in Florida, the claims about the discovery of Noah's Ark
had been fabricated, that the information used in books and public
lectures had been stolen from others, that no scientific work whatsoever
had been undertaken and that those making the claims had no scientific
qualifications

Thousands of people paid to attend the creationist meetings and were
persuaded to purchase video and audio tapes, books and brochures which
documented the "scientific" discovery of Noah's Ark. I was bad for
business and there was a need to silence me. I was served with a Supreme
Court writ for defamation. In Australia, the defamation laws of each State
rely on antiquated English law to protect the privilege of the
aristocracy, my freedom of speech had been denied and, until the matter
went to court, I was silenced. However, the newspapers published all of
the information I had acquired. Defamation actions can take up to 10 years
to grind through the legal system and, at the last minute, the writ can be
withdrawn without the matter going to court.

As a defence, I decided to litigate against the creationists using the
Federal consumer protection laws which deal with "misleading and deceptive
conduct while engaged in trade and commerce" and the Federal copyright
laws. For the copyright action, I was joined by a former fundamentalist
from whom information was stolen. The consumer protection/copyright matter
became embroiled in the legal process from 1992 until it went to trial in
1997.

In the Australian legal process, litigants pay lawyers as the case
proceeds and the system relies on advocacy, precedent and the
inadmissibility of evidence. There are no budgets, timelines or deadlines
and there are no guarantees that a strong case will be successful.

There were more than 50 separate court sittings while the fundamentalists
used every legal and delaying tactic to stop the action appearing in court
and to increase my costs. My wife and I funded the litigation and against
us were the creationists funded by the massive fundamentalist businesses.
By 1994, the costs had become astronomical. We sold our house to continue
the litigation and an audit of our lawyers showed that they had been
grossly overcharging us.

I dismissed my lawyers and demanded repayment of the overcharged money.
They refused, I sued them and after 4 years and 16 separate sittings of
the Supreme Court, the lawyers have now agreed that they overcharged and
are now trying to negotiate a financial settlement with me for some 30% of
my total costs. In haste, a second legal company were contracted. These
lawyers forgot to appear in court a number of times, the consumer
protection/copyright action was dismissed and I had costs of $330,000
awarded against me for non-appearance in court. I contracted new lawyers,
appealed against the dismissal of the consumer protection/copyright
decision because I was prejudiced by my lawyer, won the appeal and then
sued the lawyers who did not appear in court. After 2 years and many
sittings of the Federal Court, I won a professional negligence case and
received a settlement which was some 50% of my actual additional costs.

Also in 1994, I published a book on creationism (Telling lies for God-
Reason versus Creationism, Random House), featured in a prime time TV
program (Four Corners) on creationism filmed at Mt Ararat and continued my
radio and TV broadcasting about creationism. The consumer
protection/copyright case went to trial in April, 1997. Two weeks before
the trial, my lawyer was promoted to a judge and I very quickly needed a
new lawyer who could read and comprehend 20 metres of documents and be my
advocate at the trial.

In Australia, there was a public interest in the trial. A public campaign
raised nearly $200,000 to help me (which constituted 50% of my trial
costs) and the trial was widely reported. My witnesses were international
scientists and former creationists. However, the judge did not allow these
witnesses to testify and the judge did not allow evidence on the financial
business activities of the creationist movement. There were two arenas,
one with the legal process and the other with a very damaging public
exposure of the real nature of creationism.

The judgement ruled that the creationists had stolen the work of others
for financial profit, that the creationists told lies under oath and that
the creationists were engaged in fraud. However, on a legal technicality,
it was ruled that the creationists were not engaged in "trade and
commerce" so I won and I lost but could expect a very large costs order
against me. There were many in the community who offered the view that
the floodgates would open if there was a legal precedent to show that
those who claim to be religious operate in trade and commerce. Some
observers stated that the judge did not want to reach this conclusion and,
by excluding witnesses and evidence, it became easier to find a legal
technicality. There was also public concern about the legal process and
that the consumer protection laws do not protect the public and that if
one claims to be religious, then matters of fraud are excusable. I
appealed and lost however there were now four different judges who had
given four different interpretations of the legal meaning of "trade and
commerce". I attempted to have the High Court of Australia clarify the
meaning of the words "trade and commerce" but, in mid 1998, they refused
to hear the matter. The matter could go no further in the courts.

During the 6 year period of litigation, I was Head of Department, had a
heavy teaching load, supervised 38 research theses and continued an active
program of radio programs, public lectures and television programs. My
research, health and finances suffered greatly as a result of the
inordinate stress. In April, 1998, my co-litigant involved in the
copyright aspect of the litigation died from stress. The stresses were so
great that in 1998 I have taken sick leave without pay from the University
to recover my health and composure. During the course of the litigation, I
received thousands of letters of support mixed with numerous vexatious
letters, litigation threats and death threats. Again, the creationists
unsuccessfully tried to have me dismissed from the University and again
security measures have been put in place.

As a result of the litigation, one creationist group has dissolved and,
because the use of the word science was deemed fraudulent, the business
calling itself the Creation Science Foundation changed its name to Answers
in Genesis. This group had one director with a PhD in uranium geology. For
15 years, he simultaneously published in the scientific literature about
processes which take hundreds of million of years and Precambrian rocks
and published in the creationist literature about a 6,000 year old Earth
and a "Great Flood" in which all sedimentary rocks and fossils formed. The
public exposures and pressures were such that he has resigned from Answers
in Genesis who have evolved from a group who claimed that there was
scientific credibility for creationism to a fringe religious group. My
forthcoming book (Telling lies for God--Sinking the Ark) exposes in public
all the evidence that was not heard in court.

The litigation provided a forum for the promotion of science to the public
and demonstrated to the public the fraudulent nature of creationism.
Geology has now a far higher profile in Australia than previously. Groups
of sceptics, free thinkers and rationalists have provided great support.
The British and German geological societies have honoured me for my public
stand and I won the Eureka Prize in 1995.

Science and education won, the creationists won and I lost and therefore
am legally required to pay the creationists' costs of $380,000. This I am
not able to pay, the creationists will send me bankrupt which, in effect,
will be a mechanism of silencing me and prejudicing my career. Once
bankrupt, I will have no funds for defending the defamation action by
those ruled in another court to have stolen the work of others and to have
engaged in fraud.

-=-

CREATIONISM CORRECTION

First, a disclaimer. The Skeptics Society internet hotline should not be
considered a form of publication on par with the edited and (often) peer-
reviewed articles that appear in print in Skeptic magazine. Stuff comes my way
that I share with this group because I think you might find some interest in
it. Case in point is my latest posting of Ian Plumer's note on creationism
down under. There is no possible way for me to fact check these items. Thus, I
must rely on the feedback of our readers, which in this case was provided by
Jim Lippard, who writes:

Plimer's claim to have demonstrated "financial fraud" on the part of
Australian creationist groups and/or leaders is false, as I showed in my
article "How Not To Argue With Creationists" in the NCSE's
(http://www.natcenscied.org/) _Creation/Evolution_ journal in the Winter
1991-92 issue. Plimer's claims about "financial fraud" have led to
apologies by the publishers/broadcasters who have given him a forum to
make them in the past (e.g., the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and
the magazine _Media Information Australia_).

For complete details on the alleged "financial fraud" and other
misrepresentations and falsehoods by Plimer, see:

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.